Continuumis an interdisciplinary
work, showing how the various "subjects" in life (physics, music,
biology, sociology, mind, body, you name it) are like the fences that are
placed over a sweeping and continous pasture to delineate ownership or
some other attribute. The pasture is continuous -- a continuum, but the
fences are an arbitrary invention.

So are the definitions of the traditional "subjects"
we study in schools. Reality is an infinite continuum, and definitions
are just as the word itself suggests: "de-infinite," or defined.
It's possible, and often amazingly illuminating, to alter the definitions,
and like cutting the loaf on a different or compound angle, you can see
a new kind of shape to the slice. And often learn things that solve what
have been mysteries inherent in our standard viewpoint.

Take this approach, apply it to the grand sweep of evolution,
and the understanding of evolution increases.

But Continuum also combines other subjects
together, like music, acoustics, society (anthropology), psychology and
archeology -- all mixed up into "one" intertwined subject, without
the traditional "fences." The result, at least in terms of trying
to re-construct the origin of music, has been amply rewarded in the well-reviewed
book The Origin of Music, a book
which lately has been confirmed and re-confirmed by new archeological finds
and current psychological research.

Another mystery is solved in this book -- that of matter
and its "properties." This is best explained from an excerpt
by the author in answer to a caller on a radio talk show:

In answer to the man who wanted to know how differing quantities of
electrons, protons, etc., in atoms could lead to such different properties:
He likened it all to different coloured marbles in his hand. Adding more
of the same marbles (electrons, neutrons, protons, etc) shouldn't make
a difference, so why does it make a difference in atoms by forming new
elements with different properties?

The answer is for him to think of the electrons and protons and neutrons
as letters in an alphabet, not marbles. Take the word "elbow,"
for instance. The letters are e, l, b, o, and w. We don't even have to
add more letters to change the meaning and connotations of the word (or
the "properties" of the word). The same letters can be rearranged
and spell "below," a whole different property, and again, we
can rearrange and spell it as "bowel," a far bit "below"
our "elbow." Again: The word "three" becomes "there."
The word "pearl" becomes "apparel" when you add one
more of the same -- another "p" and and another "a."

Properties are all in the arrangement of the atomic particles,
because properties do not exist in the thing itself, but
in the relationship of one matter to another. Our man may
object that this makes properties nothing more than a "perception."
Well, what is an electron? It's barely more than just an electrical charge.
And what, after all, is that?

What is a "thought" or, for that matter, a "perception?"
Each is very real, as they have accumulated in the world to change the
face of the planet physically. But can you put a thought in your hand?
Or on a scale and weigh it? Thoughts are just the weightless "insubstantial"
relationship between the synapses, neurons and grey-matter molecules
in our brain. Yet we know that thoughts are darn real as they move our
bodies and hands, which physically change the earth. Our thoughts move
matter, indeed!

Matter's weighty apearance as seeming hard and "substantial"
is just one of matter's properties. Not all real things have
to have these "substance-like" properties. In reality, matter
is a bit more ethereal, itself being a matter of "how it's spelled,"
more than anything else. There's the real mystery. Where does the "image"
end and the "substance" begin? Or maybe we were tricked into
this semantic dead-end by the very properties we thought were part of matter
itself -- Tangible, weighty, substantial and "hard copy,"and confusing them with being intrinsic to the matter rather than
to its relationship to other matter (ourselves included).

The relationship is as much "matter" as is
matter.

A further excerpt from Continuum, called
Evolution of the Social Brain, deals
with the main thesis in Continuum. Is the earth a living
being, as a whole? Are we developing a social planetary organ of thought?
Is there any evidence for this?

================= REVIEWS ==================

"...I at least know what it is about, and can say that...I
am excited (there, I said it)...it is the sort of (work) for which I have
been waiting..."

Tony Bennett

Unicorn Bookshop, Wales, UK

"...fascinating, intelligent, and perceptive."

Douglas Truax, Manager

Institute for Social Research

Ann Arbor, Michigan

"Thank you for your article....I Wish we could publish
it in our journal, but we just don't have the facilities....I have read
it with great interest and am in substantial agreement."

N.A.Coulter Jn, M.D. Synergetic Society, N. Carolina

"Thank you for sending your interesting manuscript,
which we would dearly wish to have been able to consider. However this
Foundation is in an acute financial crisis...but we are still very sorry....."

Ken Coates

Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation ,

Nottingham, England

"A few months ago I noticed a reference to Continuum...it
looked interesting (so) I ordered a copy for our library. When it arrived,
it lived up to my expectations and more...."

Rebecca S. Biefeld, Librarian

Syracuse University, N. Y.

"We looked over the excerpts of your book...with considerable
interest and admiration...:'

M. & J. Craig

ProActive Press, California

"Thank you so much for sharing your vision with us.
It is a responsible, in-depth effort to awaken people to (our) predicament...having
been asleep so often for so long."

Stephen Levine

Unity Press, California,

"...fascinating..."

Gail Larrick

Glide Publications, California

"Our feeling is that you should have no trouble finding
a publisher for it:"